Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

Over 40% of the antibiotic prescriptions filled by Medicare Part D beneficiaries in 2019 were prescribed by just 10% of health care providers, based on data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“Higher-volume prescribers prescribed antibiotics to a larger share of their patient panel and their prescribing rate was 60% higher than that of lower-volume prescribers, indicating that their prescribing practices might be independent of the number of beneficiaries under their care,” Katryna A. Gouin, MPH, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In 2019, 41% of all Part D antibiotics – that’s 24.4 million prescriptions – were prescribed by 69,835 higher-volume prescribers. The other 59% of all antibiotics were prescribed by the 627,000 lower-volume health care providers included in the analysis (those who prescribed fewer than 11 antibiotics were excluded), Ms. Gouin of Chenega in Anchorage, Alaska, and associates noted.

The analysis involved the Medicare Part D Prescribers by Provider data set and defined the highest-volume prescribers “as those in the highest 10th percentile of prescriber-level antibiotic volume (number of antibiotic prescriptions filled) across all Medicare providers nationwide,” the investigators explained.

The antibiotic-prescribing rate for the higher-volume prescribers was 680 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries, which was 60% higher than the 426 prescriptions per 1,000 among the lower 90% of prescribers. Another way to look at it: The top 10% of health care providers “wrote a median of 284 antibiotic prescriptions, compared with a median of 41 among lower-volume prescribers,” the investigators said.

Physicians in internal medicine and family practice, the two largest medical specialties, were the most likely to be 10-percenters, accounting for 24.6% and 27.5%, respectively, of the higher-volume group. They were followed by nurse practitioners (14.1%) and physician assistants (7.4%), who were classified as specialists for the purposes of the study, Ms. Gouin and associates said.

The only other group of physicians among the top six specialties were urologists, who represented 6.8% of high-volume prescribers but only 1% of all prescribers, they noted.

The highest antibiotic prescription rate in the six largest groups of providers occurred among dentists, whose highest-prescribing practitioners wrote 1,271 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries. Even the lower-prescribing 90% of dentists prescribed more antibiotics (1,068 per 1,000) than did the higher-prescribing family physicians (611 per 1,000) and internists (590 per 1,000), the researchers said.

The prescribing rates for all the other specialties that were not included separately also were higher than the family physicians’ and internists’. These rates were 850 per 1,000 beneficiaries for the higher-prescribers and 360 per 1,000 for the lower-prescribers, the researchers wrote.

The considerable differences in prescribing practices between specialties and even among those of the same specialty present “opportunities for improved prescribing through antibiotic stewardship activities focusing on these higher-volume prescribers, independent of specialty,” Ms. Gouin and associates wrote.

Over 40% of the antibiotic prescriptions filled by Medicare Part D beneficiaries in 2019 were prescribed by just 10% of health care providers, based on data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“Higher-volume prescribers prescribed antibiotics to a larger share of their patient panel and their prescribing rate was 60% higher than that of lower-volume prescribers, indicating that their prescribing practices might be independent of the number of beneficiaries under their care,” Katryna A. Gouin, MPH, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In 2019, 41% of all Part D antibiotics – that’s 24.4 million prescriptions – were prescribed by 69,835 higher-volume prescribers. The other 59% of all antibiotics were prescribed by the 627,000 lower-volume health care providers included in the analysis (those who prescribed fewer than 11 antibiotics were excluded), Ms. Gouin of Chenega in Anchorage, Alaska, and associates noted.

The analysis involved the Medicare Part D Prescribers by Provider data set and defined the highest-volume prescribers “as those in the highest 10th percentile of prescriber-level antibiotic volume (number of antibiotic prescriptions filled) across all Medicare providers nationwide,” the investigators explained.

The antibiotic-prescribing rate for the higher-volume prescribers was 680 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries, which was 60% higher than the 426 prescriptions per 1,000 among the lower 90% of prescribers. Another way to look at it: The top 10% of health care providers “wrote a median of 284 antibiotic prescriptions, compared with a median of 41 among lower-volume prescribers,” the investigators said.

Physicians in internal medicine and family practice, the two largest medical specialties, were the most likely to be 10-percenters, accounting for 24.6% and 27.5%, respectively, of the higher-volume group. They were followed by nurse practitioners (14.1%) and physician assistants (7.4%), who were classified as specialists for the purposes of the study, Ms. Gouin and associates said.

The only other group of physicians among the top six specialties were urologists, who represented 6.8% of high-volume prescribers but only 1% of all prescribers, they noted.

The highest antibiotic prescription rate in the six largest groups of providers occurred among dentists, whose highest-prescribing practitioners wrote 1,271 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries. Even the lower-prescribing 90% of dentists prescribed more antibiotics (1,068 per 1,000) than did the higher-prescribing family physicians (611 per 1,000) and internists (590 per 1,000), the researchers said.

The prescribing rates for all the other specialties that were not included separately also were higher than the family physicians’ and internists’. These rates were 850 per 1,000 beneficiaries for the higher-prescribers and 360 per 1,000 for the lower-prescribers, the researchers wrote.

The considerable differences in prescribing practices between specialties and even among those of the same specialty present “opportunities for improved prescribing through antibiotic stewardship activities focusing on these higher-volume prescribers, independent of specialty,” Ms. Gouin and associates wrote.

Over 40% of the antibiotic prescriptions filled by Medicare Part D beneficiaries in 2019 were prescribed by just 10% of health care providers, based on data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“Higher-volume prescribers prescribed antibiotics to a larger share of their patient panel and their prescribing rate was 60% higher than that of lower-volume prescribers, indicating that their prescribing practices might be independent of the number of beneficiaries under their care,” Katryna A. Gouin, MPH, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In 2019, 41% of all Part D antibiotics – that’s 24.4 million prescriptions – were prescribed by 69,835 higher-volume prescribers. The other 59% of all antibiotics were prescribed by the 627,000 lower-volume health care providers included in the analysis (those who prescribed fewer than 11 antibiotics were excluded), Ms. Gouin of Chenega in Anchorage, Alaska, and associates noted.

The analysis involved the Medicare Part D Prescribers by Provider data set and defined the highest-volume prescribers “as those in the highest 10th percentile of prescriber-level antibiotic volume (number of antibiotic prescriptions filled) across all Medicare providers nationwide,” the investigators explained.

The antibiotic-prescribing rate for the higher-volume prescribers was 680 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries, which was 60% higher than the 426 prescriptions per 1,000 among the lower 90% of prescribers. Another way to look at it: The top 10% of health care providers “wrote a median of 284 antibiotic prescriptions, compared with a median of 41 among lower-volume prescribers,” the investigators said.

Physicians in internal medicine and family practice, the two largest medical specialties, were the most likely to be 10-percenters, accounting for 24.6% and 27.5%, respectively, of the higher-volume group. They were followed by nurse practitioners (14.1%) and physician assistants (7.4%), who were classified as specialists for the purposes of the study, Ms. Gouin and associates said.

The only other group of physicians among the top six specialties were urologists, who represented 6.8% of high-volume prescribers but only 1% of all prescribers, they noted.

The highest antibiotic prescription rate in the six largest groups of providers occurred among dentists, whose highest-prescribing practitioners wrote 1,271 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries. Even the lower-prescribing 90% of dentists prescribed more antibiotics (1,068 per 1,000) than did the higher-prescribing family physicians (611 per 1,000) and internists (590 per 1,000), the researchers said.

The prescribing rates for all the other specialties that were not included separately also were higher than the family physicians’ and internists’. These rates were 850 per 1,000 beneficiaries for the higher-prescribers and 360 per 1,000 for the lower-prescribers, the researchers wrote.

The considerable differences in prescribing practices between specialties and even among those of the same specialty present “opportunities for improved prescribing through antibiotic stewardship activities focusing on these higher-volume prescribers, independent of specialty,” Ms. Gouin and associates wrote.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with restless legs syndrome showed an increase in symptom severity in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, but this increase had waned by 2021, according to data from 500 participants in the National Restless Legs Syndrome Opioid Registry.

Sufferers of restless legs syndrome (RLS) experience not only sleep disturbance, but also daytime sleepiness, and high levels of depression, anxiety, and panic, wrote Benjamin Wipper of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Considering the link between RLS and psychiatric illness, it has been speculated that there may have been increases in RLS symptom severity alongside the recent rise in depression and anxiety,” but this association has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine , the researchers reviewed data from 500 adult participants in the National RLS Opioid Registry, a longitudinal observational study. Participants reported RLS symptom severity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at 6-month intervals. Survey responses were collected from the early phase of the pandemic in the United States in January/February 2020, then in April/May 2020, and then 6 months later, from September 2020 through February 2021, and also 1 year later, in March 2021 through June 2021.

Participants completed a baseline phone interview and online survey, with symptoms assessed via the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group severity scale (IRLS), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the General Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

In all, 153 participants completed surveys during January and February 2020, and 155 completed surveys during April and May 2020. Baseline characteristics were similar for all participants.

In a between-subjects analysis for these time periods, symptom scores on the IRLS were significantly higher in January/February 2020; participants were approximately twice as likely to have IRLS scores of 20 or higher compared to April/May 2020 (37.7% vs. 20.9%).

The researchers also compared responses by the same participants at baseline and 6 months later, from September 2020 through February 2021, and 1 year later, from March 2021 through June 2021. In this within-subjects analysis, 51.3% of the participants had increased IRLS scores in spring 2020. Participants were significantly more likely to have IRLS scores of 20 or above in the early COVID-19 period in April and May 2020 compared with baseline (37.7% vs. 26.6%). Both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were higher during early COVID-19 in April and May 2020 than at baseline.

“Changes in IRLS were also significantly correlated with changes in both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, providing further support for the associations of RLS to both depression and anxiety,” the researchers wrote. “Notably, individuals who completed surveys in January and February 2020 did not see increases in RLS severity or other mental health questionnaire values on subsequent six-month surveys completed during the pandemic or on the following iteration of surveys 1 year later. We suspect that these findings may be at least partially related to the timing of the surveys,” the researchers said. Six-month survey data for most patients were collected during a decline in cases and hospitalizations, and 1-year data in early 2021 may have reflected optimism with the availability of vaccines, they said. 

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, and the lack of data on the effect of COVID-19 infection on RLS symptoms, which should be investigated in future studies, the researchers said.

However, the results are the first evidence of increased RLS symptom severity during the COVID-19 pandemic, and elevated scores were associated with sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety, they wrote. “These data suggest that clinicians should attend to RLS symptoms during the current pandemic and in future instances of socioeconomic and/or political uncertainty. Future studies need to confirm these findings in other populations of patients with RLS,” they concluded.

The National RLS Opioid Registry has received research funding from the RLS Foundation, the Baszucki Brain Research Fund, Florence Petrlik Family Foundation, Diane and Richard Brainerd, Steven Silin, and Jerry Blakeley. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with restless legs syndrome showed an increase in symptom severity in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, but this increase had waned by 2021, according to data from 500 participants in the National Restless Legs Syndrome Opioid Registry.

Sufferers of restless legs syndrome (RLS) experience not only sleep disturbance, but also daytime sleepiness, and high levels of depression, anxiety, and panic, wrote Benjamin Wipper of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Considering the link between RLS and psychiatric illness, it has been speculated that there may have been increases in RLS symptom severity alongside the recent rise in depression and anxiety,” but this association has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine , the researchers reviewed data from 500 adult participants in the National RLS Opioid Registry, a longitudinal observational study. Participants reported RLS symptom severity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at 6-month intervals. Survey responses were collected from the early phase of the pandemic in the United States in January/February 2020, then in April/May 2020, and then 6 months later, from September 2020 through February 2021, and also 1 year later, in March 2021 through June 2021.

Participants completed a baseline phone interview and online survey, with symptoms assessed via the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group severity scale (IRLS), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the General Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

In all, 153 participants completed surveys during January and February 2020, and 155 completed surveys during April and May 2020. Baseline characteristics were similar for all participants.

In a between-subjects analysis for these time periods, symptom scores on the IRLS were significantly higher in January/February 2020; participants were approximately twice as likely to have IRLS scores of 20 or higher compared to April/May 2020 (37.7% vs. 20.9%).

The researchers also compared responses by the same participants at baseline and 6 months later, from September 2020 through February 2021, and 1 year later, from March 2021 through June 2021. In this within-subjects analysis, 51.3% of the participants had increased IRLS scores in spring 2020. Participants were significantly more likely to have IRLS scores of 20 or above in the early COVID-19 period in April and May 2020 compared with baseline (37.7% vs. 26.6%). Both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were higher during early COVID-19 in April and May 2020 than at baseline.

“Changes in IRLS were also significantly correlated with changes in both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, providing further support for the associations of RLS to both depression and anxiety,” the researchers wrote. “Notably, individuals who completed surveys in January and February 2020 did not see increases in RLS severity or other mental health questionnaire values on subsequent six-month surveys completed during the pandemic or on the following iteration of surveys 1 year later. We suspect that these findings may be at least partially related to the timing of the surveys,” the researchers said. Six-month survey data for most patients were collected during a decline in cases and hospitalizations, and 1-year data in early 2021 may have reflected optimism with the availability of vaccines, they said. 

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, and the lack of data on the effect of COVID-19 infection on RLS symptoms, which should be investigated in future studies, the researchers said.

However, the results are the first evidence of increased RLS symptom severity during the COVID-19 pandemic, and elevated scores were associated with sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety, they wrote. “These data suggest that clinicians should attend to RLS symptoms during the current pandemic and in future instances of socioeconomic and/or political uncertainty. Future studies need to confirm these findings in other populations of patients with RLS,” they concluded.

The National RLS Opioid Registry has received research funding from the RLS Foundation, the Baszucki Brain Research Fund, Florence Petrlik Family Foundation, Diane and Richard Brainerd, Steven Silin, and Jerry Blakeley. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with restless legs syndrome showed an increase in symptom severity in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, but this increase had waned by 2021, according to data from 500 participants in the National Restless Legs Syndrome Opioid Registry.

Sufferers of restless legs syndrome (RLS) experience not only sleep disturbance, but also daytime sleepiness, and high levels of depression, anxiety, and panic, wrote Benjamin Wipper of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Considering the link between RLS and psychiatric illness, it has been speculated that there may have been increases in RLS symptom severity alongside the recent rise in depression and anxiety,” but this association has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine , the researchers reviewed data from 500 adult participants in the National RLS Opioid Registry, a longitudinal observational study. Participants reported RLS symptom severity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at 6-month intervals. Survey responses were collected from the early phase of the pandemic in the United States in January/February 2020, then in April/May 2020, and then 6 months later, from September 2020 through February 2021, and also 1 year later, in March 2021 through June 2021.

Participants completed a baseline phone interview and online survey, with symptoms assessed via the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group severity scale (IRLS), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the General Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

In all, 153 participants completed surveys during January and February 2020, and 155 completed surveys during April and May 2020. Baseline characteristics were similar for all participants.

In a between-subjects analysis for these time periods, symptom scores on the IRLS were significantly higher in January/February 2020; participants were approximately twice as likely to have IRLS scores of 20 or higher compared to April/May 2020 (37.7% vs. 20.9%).

The researchers also compared responses by the same participants at baseline and 6 months later, from September 2020 through February 2021, and 1 year later, from March 2021 through June 2021. In this within-subjects analysis, 51.3% of the participants had increased IRLS scores in spring 2020. Participants were significantly more likely to have IRLS scores of 20 or above in the early COVID-19 period in April and May 2020 compared with baseline (37.7% vs. 26.6%). Both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were higher during early COVID-19 in April and May 2020 than at baseline.

“Changes in IRLS were also significantly correlated with changes in both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, providing further support for the associations of RLS to both depression and anxiety,” the researchers wrote. “Notably, individuals who completed surveys in January and February 2020 did not see increases in RLS severity or other mental health questionnaire values on subsequent six-month surveys completed during the pandemic or on the following iteration of surveys 1 year later. We suspect that these findings may be at least partially related to the timing of the surveys,” the researchers said. Six-month survey data for most patients were collected during a decline in cases and hospitalizations, and 1-year data in early 2021 may have reflected optimism with the availability of vaccines, they said. 

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, and the lack of data on the effect of COVID-19 infection on RLS symptoms, which should be investigated in future studies, the researchers said.

However, the results are the first evidence of increased RLS symptom severity during the COVID-19 pandemic, and elevated scores were associated with sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety, they wrote. “These data suggest that clinicians should attend to RLS symptoms during the current pandemic and in future instances of socioeconomic and/or political uncertainty. Future studies need to confirm these findings in other populations of patients with RLS,” they concluded.

The National RLS Opioid Registry has received research funding from the RLS Foundation, the Baszucki Brain Research Fund, Florence Petrlik Family Foundation, Diane and Richard Brainerd, Steven Silin, and Jerry Blakeley. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A new proposed insurance rule to limit discrimination in health plans has ignited a debate over transgender health care.

The policy, known as the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, is part of the Biden administration’s proposal for 2023 for government health insurance exchanges. The rule would require health plans to ensure their benefit designs and implementation don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, sociodemographic factors, or other conditions.

The Obama administration first implemented the standard, but the Trump administration removed “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the antidiscrimination language in 2020. The Biden proposal would restore protections for those categories.

“We believe such amendments are warranted in light of the existing trends in health care discrimination and are necessary to better address barriers to health equity for LGBTQI+ individuals,” the Department of Health and Human Services wrote in the proposed rule.

The Biden administration, Democratic lawmakers, and advocacy groups have noted that the rule is vital for LGBTQ consumers to access care. But some private insurance companies have said the policy could drive up costs and that the language about what constitutes discrimination is too vague. Conservative groups have also argued that no clinical evidence supports covering care that affirms gender identity, such as hormone blockers or surgery.

Under the proposed rule, an insurer in the government health exchanges wouldn’t be classified as providing “essential health benefits” under federal law if discrimination was found, Roll Call reported. State regulators would be required to enforce the proposal.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services listed examples of presumptive discrimination that would be banned, such as limiting gender-affirmative care within a health plan. Several state health plains either don’t address coverage or limit coverage for specific services for transgender people, Roll Call reported.

Health benefit plans wouldn’t have to cover every possible health care service, Katie Keith, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, wrote in an article for Health Affairs. However, an insurer can’t have a different policy or restricted plans for transgender people over patients whose gender identity and sexual orientation match their birth gender.

The proposed rule has sparked a flurry of reactions in recent weeks. America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association for health insurance companies, said the nondiscrimination framework is overly broad and limits insurers’ abilities to design plans with controlled costs.

The rule “could create a slippery slope of eliminating benefit limits that are based on clinical evidence, support value-based care, and ensure affordable premiums,” the group wrote in a response letter.

Some conservative groups have pushed back against the coverage requirements as well. The Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation have questioned the benefits or validity of gender-affirmative care, according to Roll Call.

On the other hand, the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Initiative said the new rule could help patients who have long faced coverage issues. For instance, some insurers put HIV drugs on the highest-cost plan tiers, which can lead to major expenses for patients.

“It’s not just HIV. It’s other [chronic disease] patients, too,” Carl Schmid, executive director of the patient advocacy group, told Roll Call.

Other insurers, such as the Alliance of Community Health Plans, have said that the updated rule doesn’t give insurers enough time to implement changes. Under the proposal, insurers would have 60 days from final publication to ensure that plans meet the nondiscrimination framework. The group has suggested an effective date of 2024 or later, rather than 2023.

At the same time, some insurance groups have said they’re ready for the change now. The Association for Community Affiliated Plans, which represents small nonprofit plans, said many of its member health plans have already committed resources to ensure all patients can access services, including gender-affirming services or gender identity support for LGBTQ patients.

“We find that their forward-thinking work is – and should be – increasingly the norm,” Margaret Murray, the association’s CEO, wrote in a response letter.

Comments on the proposed rule were due Jan. 27. Now the proposal will wind through the annual approval process.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new proposed insurance rule to limit discrimination in health plans has ignited a debate over transgender health care.

The policy, known as the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, is part of the Biden administration’s proposal for 2023 for government health insurance exchanges. The rule would require health plans to ensure their benefit designs and implementation don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, sociodemographic factors, or other conditions.

The Obama administration first implemented the standard, but the Trump administration removed “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the antidiscrimination language in 2020. The Biden proposal would restore protections for those categories.

“We believe such amendments are warranted in light of the existing trends in health care discrimination and are necessary to better address barriers to health equity for LGBTQI+ individuals,” the Department of Health and Human Services wrote in the proposed rule.

The Biden administration, Democratic lawmakers, and advocacy groups have noted that the rule is vital for LGBTQ consumers to access care. But some private insurance companies have said the policy could drive up costs and that the language about what constitutes discrimination is too vague. Conservative groups have also argued that no clinical evidence supports covering care that affirms gender identity, such as hormone blockers or surgery.

Under the proposed rule, an insurer in the government health exchanges wouldn’t be classified as providing “essential health benefits” under federal law if discrimination was found, Roll Call reported. State regulators would be required to enforce the proposal.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services listed examples of presumptive discrimination that would be banned, such as limiting gender-affirmative care within a health plan. Several state health plains either don’t address coverage or limit coverage for specific services for transgender people, Roll Call reported.

Health benefit plans wouldn’t have to cover every possible health care service, Katie Keith, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, wrote in an article for Health Affairs. However, an insurer can’t have a different policy or restricted plans for transgender people over patients whose gender identity and sexual orientation match their birth gender.

The proposed rule has sparked a flurry of reactions in recent weeks. America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association for health insurance companies, said the nondiscrimination framework is overly broad and limits insurers’ abilities to design plans with controlled costs.

The rule “could create a slippery slope of eliminating benefit limits that are based on clinical evidence, support value-based care, and ensure affordable premiums,” the group wrote in a response letter.

Some conservative groups have pushed back against the coverage requirements as well. The Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation have questioned the benefits or validity of gender-affirmative care, according to Roll Call.

On the other hand, the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Initiative said the new rule could help patients who have long faced coverage issues. For instance, some insurers put HIV drugs on the highest-cost plan tiers, which can lead to major expenses for patients.

“It’s not just HIV. It’s other [chronic disease] patients, too,” Carl Schmid, executive director of the patient advocacy group, told Roll Call.

Other insurers, such as the Alliance of Community Health Plans, have said that the updated rule doesn’t give insurers enough time to implement changes. Under the proposal, insurers would have 60 days from final publication to ensure that plans meet the nondiscrimination framework. The group has suggested an effective date of 2024 or later, rather than 2023.

At the same time, some insurance groups have said they’re ready for the change now. The Association for Community Affiliated Plans, which represents small nonprofit plans, said many of its member health plans have already committed resources to ensure all patients can access services, including gender-affirming services or gender identity support for LGBTQ patients.

“We find that their forward-thinking work is – and should be – increasingly the norm,” Margaret Murray, the association’s CEO, wrote in a response letter.

Comments on the proposed rule were due Jan. 27. Now the proposal will wind through the annual approval process.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new proposed insurance rule to limit discrimination in health plans has ignited a debate over transgender health care.

The policy, known as the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, is part of the Biden administration’s proposal for 2023 for government health insurance exchanges. The rule would require health plans to ensure their benefit designs and implementation don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, sociodemographic factors, or other conditions.

The Obama administration first implemented the standard, but the Trump administration removed “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the antidiscrimination language in 2020. The Biden proposal would restore protections for those categories.

“We believe such amendments are warranted in light of the existing trends in health care discrimination and are necessary to better address barriers to health equity for LGBTQI+ individuals,” the Department of Health and Human Services wrote in the proposed rule.

The Biden administration, Democratic lawmakers, and advocacy groups have noted that the rule is vital for LGBTQ consumers to access care. But some private insurance companies have said the policy could drive up costs and that the language about what constitutes discrimination is too vague. Conservative groups have also argued that no clinical evidence supports covering care that affirms gender identity, such as hormone blockers or surgery.

Under the proposed rule, an insurer in the government health exchanges wouldn’t be classified as providing “essential health benefits” under federal law if discrimination was found, Roll Call reported. State regulators would be required to enforce the proposal.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services listed examples of presumptive discrimination that would be banned, such as limiting gender-affirmative care within a health plan. Several state health plains either don’t address coverage or limit coverage for specific services for transgender people, Roll Call reported.

Health benefit plans wouldn’t have to cover every possible health care service, Katie Keith, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, wrote in an article for Health Affairs. However, an insurer can’t have a different policy or restricted plans for transgender people over patients whose gender identity and sexual orientation match their birth gender.

The proposed rule has sparked a flurry of reactions in recent weeks. America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association for health insurance companies, said the nondiscrimination framework is overly broad and limits insurers’ abilities to design plans with controlled costs.

The rule “could create a slippery slope of eliminating benefit limits that are based on clinical evidence, support value-based care, and ensure affordable premiums,” the group wrote in a response letter.

Some conservative groups have pushed back against the coverage requirements as well. The Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation have questioned the benefits or validity of gender-affirmative care, according to Roll Call.

On the other hand, the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Initiative said the new rule could help patients who have long faced coverage issues. For instance, some insurers put HIV drugs on the highest-cost plan tiers, which can lead to major expenses for patients.

“It’s not just HIV. It’s other [chronic disease] patients, too,” Carl Schmid, executive director of the patient advocacy group, told Roll Call.

Other insurers, such as the Alliance of Community Health Plans, have said that the updated rule doesn’t give insurers enough time to implement changes. Under the proposal, insurers would have 60 days from final publication to ensure that plans meet the nondiscrimination framework. The group has suggested an effective date of 2024 or later, rather than 2023.

At the same time, some insurance groups have said they’re ready for the change now. The Association for Community Affiliated Plans, which represents small nonprofit plans, said many of its member health plans have already committed resources to ensure all patients can access services, including gender-affirming services or gender identity support for LGBTQ patients.

“We find that their forward-thinking work is – and should be – increasingly the norm,” Margaret Murray, the association’s CEO, wrote in a response letter.

Comments on the proposed rule were due Jan. 27. Now the proposal will wind through the annual approval process.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.